In March 2024, USCIS updated its Policy Manual on how to request USCIS to expedite adjudication of the application or petition.

USCIS Publicshed a Memo and updated the Manual. 

Immigration benefit requestors or their authorized representative may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of their application, petition, request, appeal, or motion that is under USCIS jurisdiction.[1] USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of discretion and generally requires documentation to support such requests. The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of USCIS.

As expediting an application, petition, request, appeal, or motion generally means that USCIS would adjudicate the requestor's benefit ahead of others who filed earlier, USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each expedite request.

A. Expedite Criteria or CircumstancesUSCIS may expedite adjudication of an application, petition, request, appeal, or motion at its discretion. USCIS considers the totality of the circumstances and evidence submitted in support of an expedite request.

Relevant criteria or circumstances that may be considered in determining whether to grant an expedite request include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Severe financial loss to a company or person, provided that the need for urgent action is not the result of the petitioner’s or applicant’s failure to timely file the benefit request or to timely respond to any requests for evidence.[2]
• Emergencies or urgent humanitarian situations.
• Nonprofit organization (as designated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) whose request is in furtherance of the cultural or social interests of the United States.
• Government interests, including cases identified by the government as urgent because they involve the public interest, public safety, national interest, or national security interests.
• Clear USCIS error.

1. Severe Financial Loss as a Basis for Expedited TreatmentA company can demonstrate that it would suffer a severe financial loss if it is at risk of failing, losing a critical contract, or required to lay off other employees. For example, a medical office may suffer severe financial loss if a gap in a doctor’s employment authorization would require the medical practice to lay off its medical assistants.
Job loss may be sufficient to establish severe financial loss for a person, depending on the individual circumstances. For example, the inability to travel for work that would result in job loss might warrant expedited treatment. The need to obtain employment authorization, standing alone, without evidence of other compelling factors, does not warrant expedited treatment.
In addition, severe financial loss may also be established where failure to expedite would result in a loss of critical public benefits or services.

2. Expedited Treatment Based on Emergency or Urgent Humanitarian Situations

In the context of an expedite request, an emergency or urgent humanitarian situation is a pressing or critical circumstance related to human welfare. Human welfare means issues related to the well-being of a person or group. Examples include, but are not limited to, illness, disability, death of a family member or close friend, or extreme living conditions, such as those caused by natural catastrophes or armed conflict.
USCIS considers requests related to a requestor’s individual welfare and requests that are related to the welfare of others. For example, to facilitate the well-being of an individual, USCIS may expedite a benefit request where a vulnerable person’s safety may be otherwise compromised. To facilitate the well-being of others, for example, USCIS may expedite employment authorization for healthcare workers during a pandemic.

Certain benefit requests, such as asylum applications, refugee applications, and requests for humanitarian parole, by their nature involve urgent humanitarian situations. Therefore, filing a humanitarian-based benefit, standing alone, without evidence of other time-sensitive or compelling factors, generally may not warrant expedited treatment under this criterion.[3]

Travel-Related Requests

USCIS considers expedited processing of an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) when there is a pressing or critical need for an applicant to travel outside the United States.
Expedited processing of a travel document may be warranted when there is an unexpected event, such as the pressing or critical need to travel outside the United States to obtain medical treatment in a limited amount of time, or due to the death or grave illness of a family member or close friend.
Expedited processing of a travel document may also be warranted when there is a pressing or critical need to travel outside the United States for a planned event, but processing times prevent USCIS from issuing the travel document by the planned date of departure. When the need to expedite issuance of a travel document is related to a planned event, USCIS considers whether the applicant timely filed the Form I-131 or timely responded to a request for evidence.[4]

For example, a requestor may have applied for a travel document 5 months ago when they learned of the event, but their case remains pending, and they must travel for an event which is now in 45 days, such as for a:

• Work or professional commitment (such as a meeting, conference, forum, seminar, or training);
• Academic commitment (such as a study abroad program, research trip, forum, seminar, conference, or practicum); or
• Personal commitment (such as a wedding or graduation).

The examples of travel-related emergencies provided above are not exhaustive. Officers should review travel-related expedite requests on a case-by-case basis to determine if the need to travel is pressing or critical.
A benefit requestor’s desire to travel solely for vacation generally does not meet the definition of a pressing or critical need to travel.

3. Nonprofit Organization Seeking Expedited Treatment

A nonprofit organization seeking to expedite a beneficiary’s benefit request must demonstrate an urgent need to expedite the case based on the beneficiary’s specific role within the nonprofit in furthering cultural or social interests (as opposed to the organization’s role in furthering social or cultural interests). Examples may include a medical professional urgently needed for medical research related to a specific “social” U.S. interest (such as the COVID-19 pandemic or other socially impactful research or project) or a university professor urgently needed to participate in a specific and imminent cultural program. Another example is a religious organization that urgently needs a beneficiary’s specific services and skill set to continue a vital social outreach program. In such instances, the religious organization must articulate why the respective beneficiary is specifically needed, as opposed to pointing to a general shortage alone.

4. Expedited Treatment Based on Government Interests

Government interests refer to interests of any federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local government of the United States.[5] This includes cases identified as urgent by the government because they involve public interest, public safety, national interest, or national security interests. The request must be made by a person who has authority to represent the agency or department, such as an official, manager, supervisor, or tribal leader, on the matter for which expedited treatment is being requested. The request must demonstrate that the interests are pressing and substantive.
Where a federal agency or department identifies an articulable federal government interest in accordance with these criteria, USCIS generally defers to that federal agency or department’s assessment.
If the request relates to employment authorization, the request must demonstrate that the need for the applicant to be authorized to work is critical to the mission of the requesting agency or department, and goes beyond a general need to retain a particular worker or person. For example, an applicant for employment authorization may warrant expedited processing based on government interests when the applicant is a victim or witness who is cooperating with the government and needs employment authorization because the respective agency is seeking back pay or reinstatement in court proceedings.

5. Clear USCIS Error

USCIS may consider an expedite request based on clear USCIS error when a requestor establishes an urgent need to correct the error. For example, an applicant who receives an Employment Authorization Document with incorrect information that prevents them from being able to work may request a replacement document on an expedited basis if USCIS caused the error.[6]

B. How to Request Expedited Processing

The process to request expedited processing may vary by form type and the office that has jurisdiction over the benefit request. USCIS provides specific information on submitting expedite requests on the Expedite Requests webpage.
Benefit requestors must demonstrate their need for expedited processing. Generally, USCIS requires documentation to support expedite requests. When additional documentation is needed, USCIS asks the requestor to submit supporting evidence.

1. Premium Processing

​A benefit requestor cannot request expedited processing for petitions and applications where premium processing service is available for their filing category unless they meet the exception for certain nonprofit organizations.

A benefit requestor that is designated as a nonprofit organization by the IRS seeking a beneficiary whose services are needed in furtherance of the cultural or social interests of the United States may request that the benefit it seeks be expedited without a fee, even if premium processing is available for that benefit.[7] USCIS retains discretion not to expedite the benefit request. The benefit requestor may also request premium processing for the benefit.

C. How USCIS Processes Requests for Expedited TreatmentUsing its discretion, USCIS considers expedite requests according to the criteria and circumstances described above. Not every circumstance that fits under the criteria or examples above necessarily results in expedited processing.[8]

Circumstances that Impact USCIS' Ability to Expedite

Some circumstances may prolong or inhibit USCIS’ ability to expedite certain benefit requests. Examples include, but are not limited to, when:

• The benefit requestor must perform a certain action or submit additional documentation or evidence, such as attend a biometric services appointment, be interviewed, or complete any required immigration medical examination;[9]
• There is a required background check that remains pending with a third-party agency;
• An application or petition requires an on-site inspection;[10] or
• An application or petition is dependent on the adjudication of a principal’s application or petition.

Responding to Expedite Requests

USCIS generally sends a response to expedite requests that are submitted through the Contact Center. However, to increase efficiency in processing expedite requests, USCIS generally does not provide justifications regarding expedite decisions.

Requestors in Removal Proceedings

Expedited processing of benefit requests for noncitizens with final orders of removal or noncitizens in removal proceedings is coordinated between USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[11]

USCIS Policy Manual.

On July 25, USCIS announced that it would indefinitely allow documents to be submitted with an electronically reproduced original signature. This means that a document may be printed out, signed by hang and scanned, faxed, photocopied, or similarly reproduced, provided that the copy must be of an original document containing an original handwritten signature.

"In an effort to take the lessons learned from our pandemic posture, USCIS has been evaluating which flexibilities can and should be extended permanently. As a result of this evaluation, the reproduced signature flexibility announced in March, 2020, will become permanent policy on July 25, 2022."

Individuals or entities who submit documents with an electronically reproduced original signature must retain the original “wet signature” documents, as the agency may, at any time, request an original document. Failure to provide this document may negatively impact case adjudication.

USCIS does not accept electronically signed documents that are signed through DocuSign or similar applications that affix an electronic signature.

25 июля 2022 USCIS опубликовал сообщение о том какие именно электронные подписи на документах они принимают, и какие не принимают.

Документ должен быть подписан от руки, отсканирован и предоставлен как копия оригинала подписи. Электронные подписи не принимаются по прежнему.

Тут более подробно и тут. Here is more information. Also, here. 

Using marijuana for any reason, even without a conviction, can result in denial of your green card application, either through adjustment of status in the United States (I-485) or through consular processing abroad.

Using marijuana can result in being considered inadmissible - could be under both health related and criminal related grounds

In recent years, USCIS denied applications for naturalization or citizenship (N-400) to applicants who were using marijuana or even worked in marijuana-related industry, for example, in the states where marijuana was legalized. Currently, work related to marijuana is interpreted by USCIS very broadly, to include anything from growing, distribution to providing IT services.

Colorado officials are warning legal immigrants that working in the state’s marijuana industry could jeopardize their legal status, after two people said they were denied U.S. citizenship because of their jobs.

Although 10 states broadly allow its use and sale, federal law still bans marijuana and immigration authorities say they are bound to follow that prohibition when reviewing citizenship applications.

The use and sale of marijuana for adults is broadly permitted in 10 states. More than 30 states allow a variety of marijuana-based products for medical purposes.

Lawyers have warned immigrants of the risk that using state-permitted marijuana could do to their legal status for years and are expanding that message to include employment by marijuana businesses. 

Please note that in 2019 USCIS issued a bulletin (pdf) clarifying that marijuana use is a disqualifying factor in citizenship applications, regardless of whether it’s legal in your state.

Policy Highlights  Clarifies that violation of federal controlled substance law, including for marijuana, established by a conviction or admission, is generally a bar to establishing GMC for naturalization even where the conduct would not be a violation of state law.  An applicant who is involved in certain marijuana related activities may lack GMC if found to have violated federal law, even if such activity is not unlawful under applicable state or foreign laws. Citation Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization, Part F, Good Moral Character, Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.5]

​Read here. 

To schedule a consultation with immigration attorney, please email.

Briefly in Russian:

Проблемы с получением грин карты и гражданства США при употреблении марихуаны, даже в штатах где она легализована. А также для тех, кто работает в сфере марихуаны, даже в тех штатах где это легально, и даже в тех случаях, когда работа не включает в себя разведение и распространение марихуаны. Перед подачей любого иммиграционного заявления, проконсультируйтесь с адвокатом.

USCIS published policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual on eligibility, filing, and adjudication requirements addressing Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitions to update practices and align USCIS policies with recent court decisions.

USCIS updated interpretation of the requirement for "shared residence" to occur during the qualifying spousal or parent-child relationship. Instead, the self-petitioner must demonstrate that they are "residing or have resided with the abuser at any time in the past".

USCIS is also implementing nationwide the decisions in Da Silva v. Attorney General, 948 F.3d 629 (3rd Cir. 2020), and Arguijo v. United States, 991 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2021).

Da Silva v. Attorney General held that when evaluating the good moral character requirement, an act or conviction is “connected to” the battery or extreme cruelty when it has “a causal or logical relationship.”

Arguijo v. USCIS allows stepchildren and stepparents to continue to be eligible for VAWA self-petitions even if the parent and stepparent divorced.

Clarifies how USCIS considers the 2-year filing requirement when the self-petitioner’s marriage is terminated, the abusive U.S. citizen family member dies, and the abusive family member loses or renounces U.S. citizenship or LPR status. 

Clarifies that INA 204(a)(2) does not apply when a self-petitioner files a Form I-360 based on a qualifying relationship to an abusive LPR spouse but does apply if the self-petitioner acquires LPR status and subsequently files a family-based spousal petition. 

Provides guidance on special considerations for self-petitions filed subsequent to a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) and an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485).

​Citation Volume 3: Humanitarian Protection and Parole, Part D, Violence Against Women Act [3 USCIS-PM D] 

These updates are in accordance with Executive Order 14012: Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration System and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/02/executive-order-restoring-faith-in-our-legal-immigration-systems-and-strengthening-integration-and-inclusion-efforts-for-new-americans/)

Briefly in Russian:
Недавно были внесены поправки и изменения в закон ВАВА / VAWA, о помощи жертвам домашнего насилия, и как они могут получить грин карту без помощи абьюзера. Изменения были внесены в официальное Руководство для сотрудников USCIS, которое опублоковано на их сайте.

The new guidance can be found in the USCIS Policy Manual and in USCIS Memo https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20220210-VAWA.pdf

Today, July 1, 2019, begins the exceptionally rare period of authorized concurrent filing of I-130 and I-485 for spouses and minor children of permanent residents/green card holders. The filing period is expected to end on July 31, 2019, unless August 2019 Visa Bulletin also projects F2A preference category to be "current".
It is important to file all applications properly and submit all required initial evidence in order to avoid rejection, because there could be no time for re-filing if the filing period ends on July 31st.
Spouses and minor children of the lawful permanent residents who are in the USA in *lawful status* might be able to apply for adjustment of status concurrently with the filing of I-130 petition. Consult an attorney if not sure if you are eligible to apply.
If you need legal help please email at [email protected]

In Russian:

​Сегодня 1 июля 2019 открылся период для подачи одновременно петиции на воссоединение семьи и заявления на грин карту для жен и малолетних детей постоянных жителей США, которые находятся в США *в легальном статусе*, например приехали по гостевой визе или находятся в США по студенческой визе. Этот период продлится с 1 по 31 июля 2019, в соответствии с июльским календарем виз. Помните, что важно правильно все подготовить и подать в USCIS, чтобы избежать отказа в принятии заявлений, rejection, так как не известно, продолжится ли этот период в августе или закончится 31 июля. Если вам нужна помощь, обращайтесь по электронной почте [email protected]

On June 14, 2019, USCIS announced the implementation of the “Presidential Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens,” issued May 23, 2019.

Now, USCIS officers are required to remind applicants and their petitioners at the adjustment of status (aka green card) interviews of their sponsors’ responsibilities: 

• Officers must remind applicants and sponsors that the Affidavit of Support is a legal and enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government, and that the sponsor must be willing and able to financially support the intending immigrant.
• If the sponsored immigrant receives any federal means-tested public benefits, the sponsor “will be expected to reimburse the benefits-granting agency for every dollar of benefits received by the immigrant,” USCIS said.

USCIS announcement is here; Presidential Memorandum is here.

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.
The regulation also excludes from the public benefits definition: public benefits received by individuals who are serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, and their spouses and children; public benefits received by certain international adoptees and children acquiring U.S. citizenship; Medicaid for aliens under 21 and pregnant women; Medicaid for school-based services (including services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and Medicaid benefits for emergency medical services.
This rule also makes certain nonimmigrant aliens in the United States who have received designated public benefits above the designated threshold ineligible for change of status and extension of stay if they received the benefits after obtaining the nonimmigrant status they seek to extend or from which they seek to change.
Importantly, this regulation does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs), certain trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants), victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants), or victims of domestic violence (VAWA self-petitioners), among others. 
This rule also explains how USCIS will exercise its discretionary authority, in limited circumstances, to offer an alien inadmissible only on the public charge ground the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100; the actual bond amount will be dependent on the individual’s circumstances.
This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 2019, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance.   

NEW USCIS Polity Memo: When a I-751 PERMANENT GREEN CARD INTERVIEW Can be WAIVED? Effective date of this new guidance is today, December 10, 2018.

General rule applicable to all I-751 petitions: conditional permanent residents who file a Form I-751 must appear for an interview. 

However, in practice, in most of the cases the interviews were waived, if USCIS officer was satisfied that the petition is approvable and can be approved without an interview.

Under the new Memo, USCIS officers may consider waiving an interview if they are satisfied that:

• They can make a decision based on the record because it contains sufficient evidence
of a good faith marriage;

• For Form I-751 cases received on/after December 10, 2018, USCIS has previously
interviewed the I-751 principal petitioner (for example, for a Form I-485 or Form I-130);

• There is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation in the Form I-751 or the supporting
documentation; and

• There are no complex facts or issues that require an interview to resolve questions or
concerns.
​
When determining whether to waive an interview, the considerations listed above apply regardless of whether the Form I-751 is filed as a joint petition or as a waiver of the joint filing requirement. Cases involving fraud or national security concerns must be referred to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate according to local procedures.

Briefly in Russian:

10 декабря 2018 вступили в силу новые правила (меморандум USCIS), о том в каких случаях офицеры USCIS могут утвердить петицию на снятие условностей, форма I-751, без вызова петиционера и супруга на интервью. Этот новый меморандум относится именно к петиции на снятие условностей.
 
После 10 декабря 2018 офицеры должны будут приглашать на интервью тех заявителей, которых никогда не приглашали на интервью в USCIS. Простое истолкование новых правил означает, что если вы получили иммиграционную визу через посольство, и вас никогда не интервьюировали в офисе в USCIS при получении первой условной грин-карты, то вас должны (могут?) вызвать на интервью по петиции I-751. Эти новые правила относятся одинаково к тем, кто подает петицию совместно с американским супругом, и к тем, кто подает сам как вейвер или исключение, например, после развода.

Становится еще более важно подготовить и подать сильный пакет сопроводительных документов, чтобы в соответствии с новыми правилами, у офицера не было необходимости вызывать вас на интервью.

Видео-обзор адвоката с анализом нового меморандума вы можете посмотреть тут.

Information in Russian: how to apply for adjustment of status in the U.S. Brief overview, including recent changes, effective October 1st and November 19th, 2018.

Информация по русски о том, как подать заявление на грин карту, разрешение на работу и на поездки за границу, не выезжая из США.

(1) Первое видео - информация о грин-карте - краткий обзор с учетом недавних изменений в законе:
ВИДЕО О ГРИН-КАРТЕ

​
(2) Второе видео - продолжение о разрешении на работу и на поездки - как избежать ошибок, отказа или передачи дела на депортации, после новых изменений, которые вступили в силу с 1 октября и 19 ноября 2018:
ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ О РАЗРЕШЕНИИ НА РАБОТУ И ПОЕЗДКИ.

​

On June 28, 2018, USCIS published Policy Memorandum entitled “Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens.” 

Starting October 1, 2018, USCIS started issuing NTA (referrals for deportation) in some cases where they denied a I-485 or I-539 application and the applicant is out-of-status.

Now, USCIS is expanding its right to issue a NTA to other applications as well. It will result in more cases being referred for deportation (removal) to Immigration Court.

Beginning November 19, 2018, USCIS will apply the memorandum to the following denied applications and petitions:

I-914/I-914A, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status
I-918/I-918A, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), and
I-360 VAWA Special Immigrant (Violence Against Women Act self-petitions) and 
I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status petitions)
I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions when the beneficiary is present in the US
I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (with the underlying form types listed above).

U, T, VAWA, SIJS are humanitarian applications. Previously, a denial usually didn't result in deportation. This policy changes on November 19, 2018.

Read here.

In a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, several colleges and universities have challenged a recently announced new immigration policy, which become effective on August 9, 2018. Lawsuit changes the calculation of the number of days of “unlawful presence” for nonimmigrant foreign students from the date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an immigration judge finds a violation or orders the student removed to the date the status lapsed.

In 1997, the United States established objective rules that provided visa holders notice. If the authorized period of stay ended on a date certain on which the individual was required to leave the country, unlawful presence began following that date. And for all individuals, unlawful presence began the day after either a government official or immigration judge made a determination that the individual was out-of-status. This provided an opportunity to cure their circumstances and remain in the country or to depart the country within 180 days. Either way, individuals acting in good faith had an opportunity to avoid imposition of a three- or ten-year reentry bar.

Now, based on the USCIS memo, effective August 9, 2018, when a government official or immigration judge determines that an F, J, or M visa holder is out-of-status, the unlawful‑presence clock will be backdated to the day on which the agency concludes that the visa holder first fell out-of-status.

The complaint states that the immigration system “is beset with processing delays, and many of these status determinations are made when an individual is applying for new immigration benefits.” Thus, the new policy’s use of a backdated unlawful-presence clock “will render tens of thousands of F, J, and M visa holders subject to three- and ten-year reentry bars without any opportunity to cure,” the complaint states. “This policy, accordingly, will result in the three- or ten-year banishment of untold numbers of international students and exchange visitors acting in good faith.”

By disrupting the ability of these individuals to continue studying at their schools or continuing their research, teaching, or other scholarly pursuits, the August 2018 policy memorandum fundamentally upsets student-school and employee-school relationships. This results in concrete, significant harms to colleges and universities, including through the loss of irreplaceable community members, loss of tuition dollars, and loss of trained employees. The complaint asserts that the new policy is unlawful for several reasons, including, among other things, that the defendants “failed to undertake the notice and comment required in these circumstances,” such as by not publishing advance notice in the Federal Register and responding to public comments, and by not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.

​The text of the complaint is here.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published a revised final policy memorandum related to unlawful presence. Under the revised final policy memorandum, effective August 9, 2018, F and M nonimmigrants who fall out of status and timely file for reinstatement of that status will have their accrual of unlawful presence suspended while their application is pending.

On May 10, 2018, USCIS posted a policy memorandum changing the way the agency calculates unlawful presence for those who were in student (F nonimmigrant), exchange visitor (J nonimmigrant), or vocational student (M nonimmigrant) status. 

The revised final memorandum published on August 9, 2018 supersedes May 10th memorandum and describes the rules for counting unlawful presence for F and M nonimmigrants with timely-filed or approved reinstatement applications, as well as for J nonimmigrants who were reinstated by the Department of State.

For purposes of counting unlawful presence, a timely reinstatement application for F or M status is one where the student has not been out of status for more than five months at the time of filing. Under the revised final policy memorandum, the accrual of unlawful presence is suspended when the F or M nonimmigrant files a reinstatement application within the five month window and while the application is pending with USCIS.

If the reinstatement application is denied, the accrual of unlawful presence resumes on the day after the denial.

Accrual of unlawful presence could result in later inadmissibility under section INA 212(a)(9).

Whether or not the application for reinstatement is timely-filed, an F, J, or M nonimmigrant whose application for reinstatement is ultimately approved will generally not accrue unlawful presence while out of status.   

The Department of State administers the J-1 exchange visitor program, to include reinstatement requests. If the Department of State approves the reinstatement application of a J nonimmigrant, the individual will generally not accrue unlawful presence from the time the J nonimmigrant fell out of status from the time he or she was reinstated.
​
Memorandum is here.

On June 28, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated guidance that aligns its policy for issuing Form I-862, Notice to Appear, with the immigration enforcement priorities of the Department of Homeland Security.
​
A Notice to Appear (NTA) is a document given to a foreign national that instructs them to appear before an immigration judge on a certain date.

The issuance of an NTA commences removal proceedings against the foreign national. Under the new guidance, USCIS officers will now issue an NTA for a wider range of cases where the individual is removable and there is evidence of fraud, criminal activity, or where an applicant is denied an immigration benefit and is unlawfully present in the United States.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and requestors are exempted from this updated guidance when: (1) processing an initial or renewal DACA request or DACA-related benefit request; or (2) processing a DACA recipient for possible termination of DACA. As explained in the concurrently issued DACA-specific guidance, USCIS will continue to apply the 2011 NTA guidance to these cases. USCIS will also continue to follow the existing DACA information-sharing policy regarding any information provided by a DACA requestor in a DACA request or DACA-related benefit request.

USCIS, along with ICE and CBP, has legal authority under current immigration laws to issue NTAs. New USCIS Policy Memorandum updates the guidelines USCIS officers use to determine when to refer a case to ICE or to issue an NTA.

​The revised policy generally requires USCIS to issue an NTA in the following categories of cases in which the individual is removable:

• Cases where fraud or misrepresentation is substantiated, and/or where an applicant abused any program related to the receipt of public benefits. USCIS will issue an NTA even if the case is denied for reasons other than fraud.
• Criminal cases where an applicant is convicted of or charged with a criminal offense, or has committed acts that are chargeable as a criminal offense, even if the criminal conduct was not the basis for the denial or the ground of removability. USCIS may refer cases involving serious criminal activity to ICE before adjudication of an immigration benefit request pending before USCIS without issuing an NTA.
• Cases in which USCIS denies a Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, on good moral character grounds because of a criminal offense.
• Cases in which, upon the denial of an application or petition, an applicant is unlawfully present in the United States.

The revised policy does not change the USCIS policy for issuing an NTA in the following categories:

• Cases involving national security concerns;
• Cases where issuing an NTA is required by statute or regulation;
• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) cases, except where, after applying TPS regulatory provisions, a TPS denial or withdrawal results in an individual having no other lawful immigration status;
• DACA recipients and requestors when: (1) processing an initial or renewal DACA request or DACA-related benefit request; or (2) processing a DACA recipient for possible termination of DACA.

Under separate policy guidance issued concurrently, USCIS officers will continue to apply PM 602-0050, Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens, dated November 7, 2011, to the issuance of NTAs and Referrals to ICE for DACA recipients and requestors.

New memo 1 ,general NTAs, and memo 2, DACA NTAs (both issued on June 28, 2018).

Under new June 28 2018 USCIS policy memo, USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear or NTA on its own initiative without referral to ICE, and place individuals in removal or deportation proceedings in immigration court upon denial of an application, if a person is deemed removable on the date of denial.

It will affect many people on H-1B work visa, their spouses, foreign students on F-1 student visa. This new policy will further backlog our immigration courts, and can result in more people becoming inadmissible and requiring waivers if applying for a visa at the U.S. embassy or consulate.

Briefly in Russian:

В соответствии с новыми правилами, опубликованными USCIS 28 июня 2018, Иммиграционная служба США будет передавать дела в иммиграционный суд и выдавать повестки в суд сами, без участия иммиграционной полиции ICE. Такие повестки в суд на депортацию будут выдаваться после отказа в заявлении поданном в USCIS, если заявитель потерял легальный статус на момент получения отказа. Ожидается, что суды станут еще более перегружены, и многие иностранные студенты F-1 student visa, и люди на рабочих визах H-1B получат повестки на депортацию, что ранее было крайне редко. 

#USCIS #ICE #NTA #NoticetoAppear #immigration #immigrant #immigrationcourt #deportation #removal

(On August 9, 2018, USCIS published a final revised guidance which supersedes May 10th 2018 memorandum. Please refer to a new USCIS memorandum/guidance we published here).

On May 10, 2018, USCIS posted a policy memorandum changing how USCIS will calculate unlawful presence for students and exchange visitors in F, J, and M nonimmigrant status, including F-2, J-2, or M-2 dependents, who fail to maintain their status in the United States.  

This policy aligns with Trump’s Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States to enforce the immigration laws of the country and will go into effect on Aug. 9, 2018.

Individuals in F, J, and M status who failed to maintain their status before Aug. 9, 2018, will start accruing unlawful presence on that date based on that failure, unless they had already started accruing unlawful presence, on the earliest of any of the following:

• The day after DHS denied the request for an immigration benefit, if DHS made a formal finding that the individual violated his or her nonimmigrant status while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit;
• The day after their I-94 expired; or
• The day after an immigration judge or in certain cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), ordered them excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed).

Individuals in F, J, or M status who fail to maintain their status on or after Aug. 9, 2018, will start accruing unlawful presence on the earliest of any of the following:      

• The day after they no longer pursue the course of study or the authorized activity, or the day after they engage in an unauthorized activity;
• The day after completing the course of study or program, including any authorized practical training plus any authorized grace period;
• The day after the I-94 expires; or
• The day after an immigration judge, or in certain cases, the BIA, orders them excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed).

Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled are permanently inadmissible.

Those subject to the 3-year, 10-year, or permanent unlawful presence bars to admission are generally not eligible to apply for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status to permanent residence unless they are eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or another form of relief.

This policy memorandum is updating Chapter 40.9.2 of the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual.
​
USCIS is accepting comments on the policy memorandum. The 30-day public comment period begins today and closes on June 11, 2018. For complete information on the comment process, visit the Policy Memoranda for Comment page.

On April 17, 2018, USCIS has updated its policy on the acceptance of DNA evidence supporting sibling relationships. This policy memorandum permits officers to suggest and consider direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results, and provides standards for evaluating DNA results for full siblings and half siblings. This new guidance will improve USCIS’s ability to evaluate eligibility for immigration benefits by using technological advances in direct sibling DNA test results.

When USCIS determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, it may suggest and accept DNA test results as evidence of a full-sibling or half-sibling relationship in any petition or application for an immigration benefit in which a sibling relationship is required to establish eligibility or may otherwise be relevant to an eligibility determination.

Note: USCIS will only consider results of DNA testing conducted by an AABB-accredited lab.
USCIS policy on parentage testing remains unchanged.

Testing Against Additional Relatives: to the extent possible, DNA testing against the common parent(s) is encouraged, because it produces more reliable results than tests that do not include a common parent. Similarly, test results that include additional first-degree relatives, such as another sibling, will yield more conclusive results. Including additional blood relatives, such as aunts, uncles, and cousins, also produces more reliable results, particularly where a result is otherwise inconclusive. The AABB standards encourage accredited labs to recommend additional testing of relatives, where appropriate.  

As USCIS does not currently have regulatory authority to require DNA testing, they may only suggest the option of additional testing to the petitioner. The applicant or petitioner bears the burden, however, to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. INA § 291, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013).

DNA could be expensive. The petitioner or applicant will have to pay for the DNA test if suggested by USCIS or the U.S. embassy or consulate.

(Primary evidence to establish a sibling relationship includes birth certificates, and if applicable, marriage certificates. When an officer determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, the officer may consider secondary evidence that demonstrates the sibling relationship. Secondary evidence that officers may consider includes, but is not limited to, medical records, school records, and religious documents issued contemporaneously with the event they document. Affidavits sworn to by persons who were living at the time of and who have personal knowledge of the event to which they attest may also be accepted if certain conditions are met. Following the BIA’s ruling in Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016) USCIS initiated discussions with the AABB Relationship Testing (RT) Subcommittee through the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate.)
​
This Policy Memo replaces a 2014 Policy Memo (PM-602-0106, DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships), and previous guidance in Chapter 21.9(c) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM).

​New USCIS memo.

Briefly in Russian:

USCIS опубликовал новые инструкции по использованию теста ДНК при анализе петиций поданных на брата и сестру (и также тех братьев и сестер, у кого общий только один из родителей).

Раньше тест ДНК использовался для установления отношений между родителем и ребенком, и не применялся для других категорий. Теперь USCIS могут предложить петиционеру и брату (сестре) пройти тест ДНК через лабораторию аккредитованную AABB. Они не могут принудить петиционера и заявителя пройти этот тест, а могут только "предложить". Но стоит понимать, что предлагать такой тест USCIS будут тем, у кого не хватает первичных документальных доказательств (свидетельства о рождении, о браке) или что-то вызывает недоверие к документам (подозрение, что это подделка). В случае отказа от теста ДНК, USCIS могут отказаться утвердить петицию I-130 или выдать визу. Инструкции по тесту ДНК родителей и детей остаются те же, что и раньше.

On October 23, 2017, another long-standing USCIS adjudication policy was reversed. When filing for an extension of the non-immigrant status, for example, H-1B work visa, you should not take for granted any prior approvals. An applicant has to prove his/her eligibility again when applying for an extension of the same status, even if status was approved before. USCIS will no longer defer to prior approvals.

October 23, 2017 Policy Memorandum "Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status" is available at USCIS webportal.

As a result, USCIS made it more difficult for companies to renew H-1B visas for foreign professionals (workers) who work in specialty occupations. Previously, when it was time to renew an H-1B employee’s status, the USCIS gave deference to past H-1B approval decisions. This enabled H-1B visa holders to obtain extensions in a fast and straightforward manner. USCIS recently rescinded (canceled) their old policy memorandum, and now H-1B visa holders who apply for extensions must again prove eligibility as though they are seeking H-1B visas for the first time.

This policy change will impose greater uncertainty, loss of foreign talent (who may choose to migrate to Canada instead), higher costs and delays to companies who rely on foreign talent.

USCIS is directing officers to use the same amount of scrutiny for initial and extension requests, and indicating that the new guidance applies to a variety of employment visas, not just H-1B.

It is expected that employers will be receiving many detailed Requests for Evidence (“RFE”) when H-1B extension requests are filed. These RFEs will increase the administrative and legal burden on employers seeking H-1B visas, and increase the costs.

Effective October 1, 2017, USCIS also imposed a new rule requiring in-person interviews with all employment-based immigrant visa applicants, including spouses and children, which will burden local USCIS offices and increase wait time for all green card categories waiting for an adjustment of status interview.

H-1B visas are valid for a total of six years and are usually issued in three-year increments. To prepare for the new renewal process, H-1B employers should initiate the renewal process far enough in advance to secure an extension before an H-1B employee’s status expires.
​
USCIS October 23, 2017 memo.

There have been several important announcements and policy changes concerning H-1B work visa.

First: On April 3, 2017, USCIS announced that it would introduce several new measures with intent of detecting and deterring H-1B visa fraud and abuses.  According to an official USCIS press release, USCIS will be conducting site visits to H-1B petitioners and worksites, where

(i) USCIS cannot validate the employer’s basic information through commercially available data;
(ii) H-1B dependent employers (companies with high ratio of H-1B workers as compared to U.S. workers: companies with 25 or fewer full-time employees, more than 7 H-1B workers; companies with 26-50 full-time employees, more than 12 H-1B employees; and companies with 50 or more full-time employees, 15% or more H-1B employees); and,
(iii) employers petitioning H-1B workers who work off-site. 

The site visits have been around since 2009. It's not something new. USCIS emphasized that these site visits will be random and unannounced, and are meant to identify companies that abuse the H-1B system. 

USCIS established an email address, which allows the public to submit tips, alleged violations and other information about potential H-1B abuse. The employers that are reported via this email address will also become targets for site investigations.

Second: 

On March 31, 2017, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a new Policy Memorandum made available April 3, 2017, which rescinds the December 22, 2000 memorandum titled “Guidance memo on H1B computer related positions.”

The new policy implements a significant change to the adjudication of H-1B petitions for computer programming positions.

2017 H1B Policy Changes and Updates:  The December 22, 2000 memorandum titled “Guidance memo on H-1B computer related positions” provided the policy that most computer programmers had a bachelor’s degree or higher based on information provided by the Occupational Outlook Handbook (“OOH”), which is published by the Department of Labor.  Petitioners were usually able to meet their burden of proving a particular position is a specialty occupation, if it were to prove through information provided in the OOH that a baccalaureate or higher degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position.  By rescinding the policy, USCIS has stated that the OOH is no longer sufficient evidence to prove a particular position in computer programming is a specialty occupation and has thus drastically changed how H-1B petitions for computer programmers are to be adjudicated.

Petitioner's Burden of Proof:  The consequence of rescinding the “Guidance memo on H1B computer related positions” is that USCIS has heightened the burden for petitioners.  Petitioners may not rely solely on the OOH to prove that a position in computer science is normally required. Rather, USCIS has clarified its position that petitioners must provide additional evidence to establish that the particular position is a specialty occupation as defined by 8 CFR 214.2(h) (4) (ii) for computer programming.

Entry-Level Positions in Computer Related Positions: The Policy Memorandum clarifies that USCIS must determine whether the attestations and content of the LCA correspond to and support the H-1B visa petition. A petitioner’s designation that a position is a Level I, entry-level position “would likely contradict a claim that the proffered position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation.”  USCIS is changing a long established tradition, by clarifying that most entry-level positions are not specialized occupations within the computer programmer occupation. This provides a basis to deny many of the now pending petitions, filed in April 2017 for the FY 2018. 

Put American Workers First Approach in Tech Companies:  It appears restricting H-1B visas is part of the current administration’s attempt to “put American workers first.” As technology continues to grow, the job of a computer programmer was in the top 5 H-1B job titles for the FY 2017 H-1B petitions.  

Last Minute Policy Change Published on the First Day of the FY 2018 Filing Period for H-1B: The Policy Memorandum is dated March 31, 2017, but only made available April, 3, 2017, as a result, many of the new H-1B petitions have already been filed following the long-established standards of the now “outdated” USCIS 2000 guidance memo.  Employers can now expect to receive RFE (Requests for Evidence) questioning eligibility and requesting additional documentation, and many petitions can be denied.

USCIS allows only 5 days a year in April to file new, cap-subject H-1B petitions for the next fiscal year. In 2016 for FY 2017, 236,000 H-1B visa applicants competed for the 85,000 quota available annually. 

​
​On February 20 and 21, 2017, DHS USCIS had published several Memorandums, Fact Sheets and Q&As at their official website, explaining changed border and interior immigration policies and priorities, following the executive branch's January 2017 executive orders. 

Two USCIS Memorandums, both dated February 20, 2017, and signed by the DHS Secretary John Kelly, authorize CBP, ICE and USCIS to significantly increase interior and border enforcement efforts:

Border protection and enforcement, building the wall and hiring at least 10,000 more ICE agents; expedited removal will apply to a broader class of undocumented immigrants; changes to asylum application process and credible fear interview, intended to make it more difficult to get a grant of asylum; criminal sanctions for parents of unaccompanied children; anyone present in USA without a proper visa or status will be subject to deportation; changing old DHS removal priorities from criminal aliens to all undocumented aliens; DACA grantees are safe from deportation at present time.

• Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies
• Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest
• Fact Sheet: Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
• Fact Sheet: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017, Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements ):

• Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense. 
• Establishing policies regarding the apprehension and detention of aliens. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will release aliens from custody only under limited circumstances, such as when removing them from the country, when an alien obtains an order granting relief by statute, when it is determined that the alien is a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, refugee, or asylee, or that the alien holds another protected status, when an arriving alien has been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and the alien satisfactorily establishes his identity and that he is not a security or flight risk, or when otherwise required to do so by statute or order by a competent judicial or administrative authority.
• Hiring more CBP agents and officers. CBP will immediately begin the process of hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as well as 500 Air & Marine agents and officers, while ensuring consistency in training and standards.
• Identifying and quantifying sources of aid to Mexico. The President has directed the heads of all executive departments to identify and quantify all sources of direct and indirect federal aid or assistance to the government of Mexico. DHS will identify all sources of aid for each of the last five fiscal years.
• Expansion of the 287(g) program in the border region. Section 287(g) of the INA authorizes written agreements with a state or political subdivision to authorize qualified officers or employees to perform the functions of an immigration officer. Empowering state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law is critical to an effective enforcement strategy, and CBP and ICE will work with interested and eligible jurisdictions.
• Commissioning a comprehensive study of border security. DHS will conduct a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border (air, land, and maritime) to identify vulnerabilities and provide recommendations to enhance border security. This will include all aspects of the current border security environment, including the availability of federal and state resources to develop and implement an effective border security strategy that will achieve complete operational control of the border.
• Constructing and funding a border wall. DHS will immediately identify and allocate all sources of available funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall, including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as patrol and access roads, and develop requirements for total ownership cost of this project.
• Expanding expedited removal. The DHS Secretary has the authority to apply expedited removal provisions to aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States, who are inadmissible, and who have not been continuously physically present in the United States for the two-year period immediately prior to the determination of their inadmissibility, so that such aliens are immediately removed unless the alien is an unaccompanied minor, intends to apply for asylum or has a fear of persecution or torture in their home country, or claims to have lawful immigration status. To date, expedited removal has been exercised only for aliens encountered within 100 air miles of the border and 14 days of entry, and aliens who arrived in the United States by sea other than at a port of entry. The Department will publish in the Federal Register a new Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Under Section 235(b)(1)(a)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that expands the category of aliens subject to expedited removal to the extent the DHS Secretary determines is appropriate, and CBP and ICE are directed to conform the use of expedited removal procedures to the designations made in this notice upon its publication.
• Returning aliens to contiguous countries. When aliens apprehended do not pose a risk of a subsequent illegal entry, returning them to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived, pending the outcome of removal proceedings, saves DHS detention and adjudication resources for other priority aliens.  CBP and ICE personnel shall, to the extent lawful, appropriate and reasonably practicable, return such aliens to such territories pending their hearings.
• Enhancing Asylum Referrals and Credible Fear Determinations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers will conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. USCIS will also increase the operational capacity of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate.
• Allocating resources and personnel to the southern border for detention of aliens and adjudication of claims. CBP and ICE will allocate available resources to expand detention capabilities and capacities at or near the border with Mexico to the greatest extent practicable. CBP will focus on short-term detention of 72 hours or less; ICE will focus on all other detention capabilities.
• Properly using parole authority. Parole into the United States will be used sparingly and only in cases where, after careful consideration of the circumstances, parole is needed because of demonstrated urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Notwithstanding other more general implementation guidance, and pending further review by the Secretary and further guidance from the Director of ICE, the ICE policy directive with respect to parole for certain arriving aliens found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture shall remain in full force and effect.
• Processing and treatment of unaccompanied alien minors encountered at the border. CBP, ICE, and USCIS will establish standardized review procedures to confirm that alien children who are initially determined to be unaccompanied alien children continue to fall within the statutory definition when being considered for the legal protections afforded to such children as they go through the removal process.
• Putting into place accountability measures to protect alien children from exploitation and prevent abuses of immigration laws. The smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States puts those children at grave risk of violence and sexual exploitation.  CBP and ICE will ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who facilitate such smuggling or trafficking.
• Prioritizing criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses committed at the border. To counter the ongoing threat to the security of the southern border, the directors of the Joint Task Forces-West, -East, and -Investigations, as well as the ICE-led Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs), are directed to plan and implement enhanced counter-network operations directed at disrupting transnational criminal organizations, focused on those involved in human smuggling.
• Public Reporting of Border Apprehensions Data. In order to promote transparency, CBP and ICE will develop a standardized method for public reporting of statistical data regarding aliens apprehended at or near the border for violating the immigration law.

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States)

• Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense. 
• The Department’s Enforcement Priorities. Congress has defined the Department’s role and responsibilities regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. Effective immediately, and consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 3331 of Title 5, U.S. Code, Department personnel shall faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens. 
• Strengthening Programs to Facilitate the Efficient and Faithful Execution of the Immigration Laws of the United States. Facilitating the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States—and prioritizing the Department’s resources—requires the use of all available systems and enforcement tools by Department personnel.
• Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion. Unless otherwise directed, Department personnel may initiate enforcement actions against removable aliens encountered during the performance of their official duties. Department personnel should act consistently with the President’s enforcement priorities as identified in his executive order and any further guidance issued by the director of ICE, the commissioner of CBP, and the director of USCIS prioritizing the removal of particularly dangerous aliens, such as convicted felons, gang members, and drug traffickers.
• Establishing the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. The Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office within the Office of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will create a programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. The liaison will facilitate engagement with the victims and their families to ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that they are provided with information about the offender, including the offender’s immigration status and custody status, and that their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed.
• Hiring Additional ICE Officers and Agents. To effectively enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the United States in accordance with the president’s directives, additional ICE agents and officers are necessary. The director of ICE shall—while ensuring consistency in training and standards—take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional mission support and legal staff necessary to support their activities.
• Establishment of Programs to Collect Authorized Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, the director of ICE, the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties for which the Department is authorized under the law to assess and collect from removable aliens and from those who facilitate their unlawful presence in the United States.
• Aligning the Department’s Privacy Policies with the Law. The Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. 
• Collecting and Reporting Data on Alien Apprehensions and Releases. The collection of data regarding aliens apprehended by ICE and the disposition of their cases will assist in the development of agency performance metrics and provide transparency in the immigration enforcement mission.
• No Private Right of Action. This document provides only internal DHS policy guidance, which may be modified, rescinded, or superseded at any time without notice.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Q20: How does the expansion of expedited removal account for those who may be eligible for immigration benefits?
A20: The Secretary’s intentions regarding expedited removal are under development and will be set forth and effective upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
Q21: How soon will DHS make changes to more closely align its use of the expedited removal authority with Congressional intent?
A21: DHS is working to issue appropriate parameters in which expedited removal in these kinds of cases will be used.

Q22: Is it true that DHS is going to make the threshold for meeting credible fear in asylum cases more difficult to meet?
A22: The goal of DHS is to ensure the asylum process is not abused. Generally speaking, to establish a credible fear of persecution, an alien must demonstrate that there is a “significant possibility” that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the claim and such other facts as are known to the officer.
Asylum officers are being directed to conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. In determining whether the alien has demonstrated a significant possibility that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum or torture protection, the asylum officer shall consider the statements of the alien and determine the credibility of the alien’s statements made in support of his or her claim and shall consider other facts known to the officer, consistent with the statute.

Q23: How will the enhancements to asylum referrals and credible fear determinations under INA section 235(b)(1) affect the work of USCIS?
A23: The Secretary’s memorandum outlines several points:

• The director of USCIS shall ensure that asylum officers conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination.
• The director shall also increase the operational capacity of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) and continue to strengthen its integration to support the Field Operations Directorate (FOD), Refugee Asylum and International Operations (RAIO), and Service Center Operations (SCOPS), consulting with Operational Policy and Strategy (OP&S) as appropriate.
• The USCIS director, CBP commissioner, and ICE director shall review their agencies’ fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention measures and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.
• The asylum officer, as part of making a credible fear finding, shall determine the credibility of statements made by the individual in support of his or her claim. This determination should include, but is not limited to, consideration of the statistical likelihood that the claim would be granted by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
• The asylum officer shall make a positive credible fear finding only after the officer has considered all relevant evidence and determined, based on credible evidence, that the alien has a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, based on established legal authority.


• Q25: Is it true that in cases of UACs (unaccompanied children) who travel to the U.S. to reunite with a parent, if a parent is identified by ORR as an appropriate guardian, that parent could also be prosecuted for possibly having their child smuggled into the U.S.?

• A25: Correct. The parents and family members of these children, who are often illegally present in the United States, often pay smugglers several thousand dollars to bring their children into this country. Tragically, many of these children fall victim to robbery, extortion, kidnapping, sexual assault, and other crimes of violence by the smugglers and other criminal elements along the dangerous journey through Mexico to the United States. Regardless of the desires for family reunification, or conditions in other countries, the smuggling or trafficking of alien children is intolerable. Accordingly, DHS shall ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who—directly or indirectly—facilitate the smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States. This includes placing parents or guardian who are removable aliens into removal proceedings, or referring such individuals for criminal prosecution, as appropriate.
  and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.

Q12: Will ICE still be hiring the 10,000 officers called for in the executive orders?
A12: ICE is currently developing a hiring plan.

Q13: What is the 287(g) program and how will it be used by ICE?A13: The 287(g) program allows local law enforcement agencies to participate as an active partner in identifying criminal aliens in their custody, and placing ICE detainers on these individuals. ... To strengthen the 287(g) program, ICE field leadership has begun examining local operational needs and liaising with potential 287(g) partners and will collaborate with CBP in these efforts. Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process. 

Q14: Are 287(g) officers now going to do ICE’s job?A14: The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, enables state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint memorandum of agreement. The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

Q15: When will 287(g) task force agreements be available to local jurisdictions? Will these new task force agreements be modeled after the previously canceled task force model?A15: ICE and CBP will be  is developing a strategy to further expand the 287(g) Program, to include types of 287(g) programs, locations, and recruitment strategies.  ... Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process. ...

Q16: How will ICE accommodate an immigration judge in each of its facilities? How about asylum officers?A16: ICE is working with the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to review current procedures and resources in order to identify efficiencies and best practices to improve the system. Most dedicated detention facilities already house immigration courts and have enough space to accommodate asylum officers. ICE is also seeking to increase the use of technology, mainly through the use of video teleconferencing, in locations with insufficient space or staffing.

Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States Release Date: February 21, 2017

Q2: How is ICE conducting interior enforcement operations based on this executive order?A2: Effective immediately, ICE will direct its personnel as well as its state and local partners through the 287(g) program to apply the enforcement priorities stated in Executive Order No. 13768. 
To that end, within 180 days, ICE will carry out a number of actions to implement the enforcement priorities stated in the executive order. Some of those actions include, but are not limited to, conducting targeted enforcement operations and allocating resources to work in jurisdictions with violent crime tied to gang activities.
​
Q3: Does this new memoranda substantively change the authority of immigration enforcement officers throughout DHS to exercise traditional law enforcement discretion?A3: DHS officers and agents maintain discretion to determine which action(s) to take against removable aliens, but they have been provided with additional guidance by the president and secretary. 

Q5: What are ICE’s priorities under this executive order?A5: Under this Executive Order, ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States. 

Q14: When is the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) being terminated (Previous Administration's policy)?
A14: ICE has terminated the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) and restored Secure Communities, directing its personnel to take enforcement action consistent with the priorities set forth in the executive orders. 

Q18: What threshold of abuse of a public benefit program will render someone removable?
A18: Those who have knowingly defrauded the government or a public benefit system will be priority enforcement targets.

Q22: Do these memoranda affect recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)?
A22: No. (Presently, new immigration enforcement policies do not affect DACA grantees. However, there have been recent arrests of DACA grantees)